hegelian

It kinda has a similar problem to the Hegelian dialectic that Marx built his stuff on.

Plain old Critical Theory you should study to understand how people today are subtly manipulated (the Hegelian dialectic is a good start).

In fact as a postmarxist Foucault was revolting against the dominance of Hegelian thinking.

It's fear mongering, and you're disregarding Hegelian dialectics by arguing in such logical extremes.

His obscurantist style is a regression to the worst excesses of post-hegelian academic discourse.

Which is an instance of the Hegelian Dialectic, which is itself bullshit.

We are not on some Hegelian march towards a preordained future.

That would be true if abstraction were a cosmic force that radiated in all directions equally, a Hegelian horror trip anihilating all meaning so to speak.

The irony here is that your jaded insight is a retread of Fukuyama's 1992 framing of liberal democracy as a Hegelian end-state in _The End Of History_.

That's an overly Hegelian analysis of the situation, but hopefully that gives a flavor of what I'm thinking about in juxtaposing the two events politically.

The real issue is integrating opposing views -- the Hegelian dialectic where people take a thesis, antithesis, and turn it into a synthesis -- that's where actual understanding takes place.

It probably has nothing to do with it, but as I was reading your post it sounded very similar to the typical Hegelian approach to history and societies.

I found some references, including this one[1]: "As far as the philosophy of history is concerned, what is the first trait of the Hegelian vision of the Napoleonic hero?

Well, here's a Hegelian thought for you: the demise of Lisp in the AI circles, and then in the industry means that wasn't not "real" enough (in the Hegelian sense), it was just a temporary transition phase till newer languages got GC, reflexion, macros, metaprogramming, etc.

What happened with Uber (AirBNB/etc...) is the classical case from Hegelian dialectic - when situation gets that bad, that "badness" is a fertile soil from which a principally new solution emerges which fundamentally changes the situation - in western world such process is called "disruption".

I found most books/papers to be derivative or more of a documentation of humanities people's self-referential knowledge (e.g., explaining all of the literary (Grego-Roman, Biblical and Celtic) allusions and historical context in "Ulysses"; and therefore, all of these allusions fit in this grand theory of {Hegelian Dialectic, Post-modernity}).

I wish I was well versed into dialectic/Hegelian thought as I am sure there's a way of seeing this as a step towards abolition of private property altogether.

There is in fact a clear line of descent in terms of the reasoning and discoveries made which can be traced from the Pre-Socratics to the critical romantic enlightenment strains of Kantian and Post-Hegelian philosophy, ending ultimately in a series of complex distortions wrought by the Marxist school.

As for Bergson, I see him as a kind of rival to the entire Husserlian tradition, Heidegger in particular; addressing the same questions regarding science and the difficulties of post-Kantian, post-Hegelian epistemology in the modern world, but much clearer and therefore less subject to the cult of interpretation that seems to be the domain of French phenomenology.